User talk:Flat Out
Hi, I happened to see your comments on the "PathVisio" talk page that unfortunately are really old. You mention that there was a copyright breach with a PathVisio webpage. That page no longer exists, but I am actually surprised with the comment. Since PathVisio is an Open Source project and all related content is meant to be cc0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Evelo (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Chris Evelo thanks for your comment, you are right. No harm done. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 August 2014
- Wikimedia in education: Leading universities educate with Wikipedia in Mexico
- News and notes: "History is a human right"—first-ever transparency report released as Europe begins hiding Wikipedia in search results
- Traffic report: Ebola drives reader interest
- Featured content: Bottoms, asses, and the fairies that love them
- Technology report: A technologist's Wikimania preview
This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2014)
Very sorry to hear about it, you were/are a very decent editor. Hope it turns out to be temporary – if not, all the best and thanks for all your help. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Your page says you're retired, which means you'll probably never see this. But I noticed a recent post from yuo which makes me think maybe you will see it, so I'll tell you anyway.
I saw your name on the talk page of the tiger vs lion page, and you seem to be someone with some authority here in wikipedia so I'm just wondering if you are arbitrating somehow for that page. I'm a teacher with a biology degree, and I've used the page for years now as an example for my students how shockingly biased and inaccurate wikipedia can be and to show why you can't reference wikipedia for essays.
I have a number of studies on my computer backing up the opinion that the two animals are far more evenly matched than the page represents, and if anything the lion should have the advantage. I'm not about to discuss them with Bigcats82 without someone arbitrating because I've tried that before and he's simply a fanatic and just trolls anyone with illogical babble and deletes all their edits, even their talk page posts, till they give up.
At the risk of losing my 'perfect example' of how bad wikipedia can be I'd like to offer a few balancing points of view, all supported with academic papers but only if an arbitrator is present.
Is there such a place for such discussion? I work evening tuition as well and have young children so apologies if I forget about this and don't respond for a week or so.
- It's pathetic that you still haven't learnt how flawed your logic on this topic and in science is in general. The article is now accurate and neutral as it follows the general positions of the reliable sources. All your so called sources were your own original research, fictions or opinions and you must not exploit Wikipedia to publish your own thoughts. Calling me fanatic just shows you are the same as those believing flat earth and thus labeling those believing in round earth round earth fanatics. I am a leo born and actually a lion fan and you can find my constructive edits in lion and Barbary lion articles as well - especially the latter there were lots of false information undermining Barbary lions. And in the bear article there were edits undermining lions as well and I corrected them all according to the existing sources. I just make sure the information here is correct. I am also one of the main contributors that improved the accuracy of our lion and tiger articles and brought them back into GA and FA standards. Almost all of my near 2000 major edits in Wikipedia were accepted by the community and ALL my edits that got disagreements by someone like you were eventually accepted by admins. I am talking about all the Wikipedia articles I edits, not just on Tiger vs lion. And note Flat Out and some other admins also disagreed with those problematic edits favored lions - check the history most of those problematic edits were reverted by them not by me. Your language skills are good but your logic and your assuming bad faith attitude have been keeping you from making constructive edits yet. Learn how to think logically (a higher degree from top 20 universities around the world will certainly help as you appear to believe in higher education from your previous posts) if you genuinely want to help Wikipedia and your students (which I still believe you do) and you don't need to be a mensan and a PhD graduate like me to be a good editor. Also I did not delete other talk page posts but purely harmful posts like trolling or personal attacks can be deleted (and that's why blocked user golden prime's highly offensive posts were still there as his attack posts do have some relevance to the article). Also talk page is not a discussion forum to publish your thoughts and original research please respect this rule and don't attempt to spam the talk page with you long journals again like what you did a year ago. BigCat82 (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)